In the review I say that whether or not Strauss was in some sense a “conservative” is not the most interesting thing about him or the debate over his work. Gottfried may be correct that Strauss is better understood—if he needs to be situated in the context of late 20th century politics at all—as a Cold War liberal. The deficiency with that approach, however, is that it fails to account for why Strauss and his disciples are more often seen to associate with the conservative movement than with the leading figures and institutions of liberalism. Strauss and Straussians have been a presence in National Review since the 1960s. They have never had a similar representation in the New Republic, let alone The Nation. More…
Things are not going well for Democrats. Riding high just weeks ago after Republicans shut down the government, the party now finds itself in a swoon: President Obama’s ratings have hit an all-time low. The implementation of healthcare reform remains a mess. Vulnerable Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from the White House, and the party is on track to lose seats in the House and Senate next year.
Parties in distress tend to fall to bickering, and today’s Democrats are no exception. On one side, liberals calling for a muscular agenda of government expansion and progressive taxation; on the other, centrists who believe restraint is necessary in both policy and politics. Progressives have been emboldened by liberal victories like that of the new mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio. Centrists fear that liberals will drive the party out of the American mainstream with their talk of income redistribution and political correctness.
“Across Europe, globalism and transnationalism, as represented by the eurozone and EU, seem in retreat, as nationalism is resurgent. Now it is the UKIP, a new British independence party, which seeks to secede from the EU that is surging—at the expense of the Tories.
Let France be France! Let British be Britain! Let Scotland be Scotland! These are the cries coming from the hearts of Europeans rejecting mass immigration and the cacophonous madness of multiculturalism.
All men may be equal in rights. But most prefer their own faith, country, culture, civilization, and kind. They cherish and wish to maintain their own unique and separate identities. They do not want to disappear into some great amalgam of the New World Order.
Whether globalism or nationalism prevails, the big battle is coming.”
“Liberals are so politically inert that I don’t waste much time criticizing them. The Democratic Party, to the extent that it’s liberal, wins nationally because the GOP is a basket case. The hard left, which knows that Democrats are about as neoliberal as the GOP, lives in a nonsense world in which puppet-wielding protesters shape policy, or would if only they built more and bigger puppets. I know some very well meaning, otherwise intelligent antiwar leftists who are nonetheless the most politically infantile people you will ever meet. Politics is just magic to them. (Some of this comes of drawing the wrong lessons from Alinsky and Gramsci—wrong lessons the activist right is now busy committing to memory.)”
While the tea party has grown steadily more unpopular over the past three years, the conservative activist movement continues to exert a powerful influence on the Republican Party and U.S. politics.
By comparison, the populist Occupy movement pushed income inequality into the political consensus but failed to gain much political traction in the Democratic Party — and researchers say those structural differences are the result of the way liberals and conservatives perceive themselves.
“The inability of liberal Occupy Wall Street protestors to achieve consensus on vital issues ultimately contributed to the movement’s failure to develop solidarity and enact political change,” the researchers wrote in a study published Nov. 18 in Psychological Science.
It’s difficult to know where to begin with this open letter to the various European-american leftist (Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, in particular) groups within the United States. I have many issues with many groups; some general, some very specific. The way in which this is presented may seem scattered at first, but I encourage all of you to read and consider carefully what I have written in its entirety before you pass any judgments.
The piece-meal approach and the political need for categorization also leads the left to valorize people in terms of their membership in various oppressed and exploited groups, such as “workers”, “women”, “people of color”, “gays and lesbians” and so on. This categorization is the basis of identity politics. Identity politics is the particular form of false opposition in which oppressed people choose to identify with a particular social category through which their oppression is reinforced as a supposed act of defiance against their oppression. In fact, the continued identification with this social role limits the capacity of those who practice identity politics to analyze their situation in this society deeply and to act as individuals against their oppression. It thus guarantees the continuation of the social relationships that cause their oppression. But only as members of categories are these people useful as pawns in the political maneuverings of the left, because such social categories take on the role of pressure groups and power blocs within the democratic framework. More…
I just flew back from Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, and boy are my arms tired of the old narrative. I was on a panel with James O’Keefe and Sonnie Johnson called “Changing the Narrative,” and we all talked about how dangerous it is for the GOP to remain stuck in the past.
The speakers at this conference bore impressive pedigrees and included Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, Pamela Gellar, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Bill Whittle, Robert Spencer, and conference founder David Horowitz. Just as New York City is an island of lunacy surrounded by hundreds of miles of reality, walking around The Breakers Palm Beach Hotel felt like a wee bit of sanity in a world gone mad.
I doubt it’s possible to develop a thorough or effective critique of statism as it exists in contemporary Western industrialized democracies without a comprehensive critique of the PC ideology. The evidence is overwhelming that PC is simply a new form of political authoritarianism, and something that the ruling class is incorporating into its own ideological superstructure. I’m a Nietzschean-Stirnerite, not any kind of conservative, but I find it disappointing that so many of my fellow libertarians and anarchists are unable to see PC for what it is.
It’s common for anarchists to press people about whether they are “capitalist” or “communist”. I view this as embracing the left/right paradigm unconsciously. I’m anti-state. Anti-statism is the common denominator in all trends of anarchism. Therefore, there is common ground between all anarchists. I can’t imagine that any anarcho-communist thinks they are going to abolish the class system without first abolishing to coercive apparatuses of the state.
The state, after all, grants the corporatists their power and privilege. It is ridiculous to assume that everybody wants to spend their life climbing the ladder of business and profit, as some anarcho-capitalists would seem to insist. Equally silly, is expecting everybody to live in communes. This type of intellectual immediate gratification sounds great on paper, but competition and cooperation both play extremely important roles in the stability of mankind. If you want to overthrow your factory boss after the state is abolished, that is between you and him. You could not possibly expect the masses to see your job and working conditions as the sole impetus for taking risky rebellious actions on their own parts. The state victimizes us all. And ALL us anarchists hate it.
The state will imprison conservatives and liberals alike. To effectively abolish the state, we need as many of the people on our side as possible, obviously. So bickering over preferences like “capitalism” or “communism” or whatever are simply arguments over theory, rather than real talk about the real cops busting down our real doors. Every time you even use the words “capitalism” or “communism”, you automatically alienate tons of people. If you simply focus on our real common enemy, the state, you can attract the most people to our shared goal. Every time you shift the focus from the state, anarcho-communists defending minimum wage laws, anarcho-capitalists defending state enforcement of property rights, you do yourself and all of us anarchists a disservice. You should constantly be dealing fatal blows to the state, with your words.
Going further back into the history of America’s obsessive foreign adventurism, let’s revisit Kosovo – a Mafia-run “state” that is the cold sore on Europe’s lower lip. It’s the center of Europe’s booming heroin trade, its Prime Minister a gangster straight out of “The Sopranos.”
Yet still the War Party presses ahead with its prescriptions for certain disaster: Syria, Iran, Russia, China – the world is filled with endless enemies, “rogue states” requiring a little “shock and awe,” just enough to make them fall in line with Uncle Sam’s plan for “world order.”
One would think that, with this record, the interventionists among us would have long since been discredited – but no. The abolition of history is one of the War Party’s signal achievements: no sooner have we suffered the consequences of our reckless hubris than the memory of it is erased, like a hangover “cured” by the hair of the dog that bit us.
Is Baghdad in flames? Then on to Damascus! Is Kabul a ruin? Next stop – Tehran!
The leader of Nepal’s ruling Maoists, who led the country’s downtrodden masses in the guerrilla war which eventually overthrew its monarchy, has provoked a row among his comrades after acquiring a luxury mansion with a swimming pool and badminton court.
Unified Communist Party of Nepal Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal Photo: PRAKASH MATHEMA/AFP/Getty Images
After years of trying to accommodate conservatives, mainstream Republicans finally went to war on Tuesday—and won.
On Tuesday, Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor’s race by less than 3 percentage points—a far smaller margin than the polls had led people to expect. The defeat has conservatives up in arms. Cuccinelli, they charge, could have won had he not been abandoned by the Republican National Committee and other interest groups that saw him as a lost cause.
Many readers of American Renaissance are aware of “anti-racist” activist networks, but very little has been written about them. These networks are the most militant proponents of political correctness and are ideologically very much with the grain of mainstream social trends. They have many chapters throughout the country. And yet they are notoriously shady and obscure—most members of the public are unaware of them. Indeed, they operate in near secrecy, and their members often wear masks at public events. Worse still, they are violent; they proclaim this proudly in their literature. In this article I would like to examine what is probably the best-known of these networks in the United States: Anti-Racist Action.
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.
The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must